The problem, which has been debated endlessly in similar discussions and no doubt will be debated in countless future ones, is that "folk" is used both in a technical sense to describe how a musical tradition evolves (let's call it Type A Folk aka 1954 Folk), and as a description of a style of performance (Type B Folk). This leads to endless argument between people who think that their interpretation is the only valid one. They are of course both valid meanings, but the context in which they are being used needs to be recognised. I prefer to describe Type A as "traditional" and Type B as "folk" but even this causes disagreement.

A newly-composed song might be Type B folk because of the nature of its performance. In time it may become Type A, not because age itself is a characteristic of Type A but because time must elapse for it to take on the characteristics of Type A. I think this has become more difficult, not because of the 1954 Definition but because technology means that people will more easily refer back to either the original or a definitive version as a benchmark and this makes it harder for other versions to evolve. More difficult, but not impossible.

A Type A song might not be performed in a "folk" style (think folk-rock) but remains "folk" because of its Type A characteristics.

There is further confusion between folk as it is understood in the UK and in the US/Canada where, as in so many other matters, there are cultural differences as well as similarities.